An article on one of my regional news programmes the other day focused on the expected arrival of fixed speed cameras in North Yorkshire. The county – Britain’s largest – is one of only two places in the country where there are no yellow speed cameras. Cameras do line the roadside and motorists will be fined if, say, they are doing 50mph in a 30mph zone. I don’t have a problem with that. What I do have a problem with are the yellow abominations that ruin a motorist’s life for doing 3mph over the limit. They, as far as I’m concerned, are vomit-inducing: almost as much as the cretins who defend their existence.
You don’t need me to tell you that the UK is the speed camera capital of Europe. Of course we are. This country is much more adept at ripping its own people off than many others – with a determination to match. Probably goes some way to explaining why another 200,000 Brits buggered off to live elsewhere last year. The line about speed cameras saving lives is trotted out with minimal analysis. However, when you see the figures, you notice that Britain has now a poorer record on saving lives than many other European states with few or no speed cameras. Despite the evidence, rules have now been changed that do not require speed cameras to stand out on the road side. So, in order to further Labour’s dream of hammering motorists until the carburettors squeak, there could be inconspicuous speed cameras on every road in the country. Wouldn’t you just like to meet some of these Cabinet ministers in the ring with a sturdy pair of boxing gloves? You could really enjoy the experience.
I’m lucky insofar as I have a very good knowledge of back roads and so-called ‘rat runs’. Therefore I keep away from main roads as much as possible. When I’m on those roads littered with speed cameras I simply do what every other driver does: slow down for the duration of those white lines that follow a speed camera location. The thieving scumbags gave me three points in 2002 (they expired two years ago). I am determined to ensure they never get that pleasure again.
I remain a supporter of academic based selection to determine the best course for a child’s education after leaving Primary School. Here in Northern Ireland we still have Grammar Schools and Comprehensive schools. We product the best results from our Grammar Schools in the UK. Nationalists seek the abolishment of academic based selection, Unionists mostly seek to retain it in some way.Since the UK Government is also ideologically opposed to academic-based selection, and since it hates the idea of Grammar Schools, it will be interesting to see what happens here. I suspect that just like maintaining the RUC, unionist bluster about maintaining academic-based selection will fade away and the Grammar’s will be destroyed. Some will go private and that will be a loss but in the world of modern academia, leftist "all must have prizes" dogma prevails and to hell with what is best for our children.
I remember exactly where I was when John Major promised the people of Northern Ireland a referendum on any peace deal back in 1995. I was then young and naive enough to believe that a referendum would scupper the objective of poisoning democracy by appeasing the IRA. How wrong I was. Three years and a different Prime Minister later, the people spoke and the republican toe-hold on power was given official sanction.
In principle I always approve of referenda. In practice they become tools of government desire. Look at how skewered the referendum in Ulster was. Appeasing Irish nationalism was the symbol of a mature, tolerant peacenik. Wanting terrorism to pay for its crimes was the hallmark of a warmonger and a bigot. Not content with enlisting the help of the MSM in an unprecedented smear campaign, the government also skewered the funding to ensure the ‘Yes’ lobby for the Belfast Agreement was vastly better funded than its opponent. How do I know this? Because I was bloody well there, that’s how!!!!!
So yes, in principle, I am in favour of a referendum on the EU Constitution. However, when arch-Europhile and Pakis’ champion Keith Vaz wades in with his tuppence, I reconsider its virtues. Why? Because I know that if someone with a history like Vaz wants to widen the debate on European membership, there is no way he would do so without simultaneously wanting the propaganda campaign to be so pro-EU heavy there would be the inevitable ‘Yes’ result in any subsequent plebiscite.
Nobody close to this government has the integrity to clamour for a referendum where both arguments would be equally funded, championed and articulated – and certainly not where one option was to call for EU withdrawal. If Gordon Brown had the guts to call for a referendum – either on the Constitution AND/OR the question of our membership – he would only do so once every propagandistic Europhilic lickspittle had been lined up to warn of an economic holocaust in the event of rejection.
So do I want a referendum? Yes. But only one that has its genesis in an atmosphere of fair and impartial analysis and equality of treatment on the issue. That’s not something Keith Vaz is likely to possess.
Everyone knows that there is a scientific consensus on man-made global warming. Except for the fact that there is not.
In 2004, history professor Naomi Oreskes performed a survey of research papers on climate change. Examining peer-reviewed papers published on the ISI Web of Science database from 1993 to 2003, she found a majority supported the "consensus view," defined as humans were having at least some effect on global climate change. Oreskes’ work has been repeatedly cited, but as some of its data is now nearly 15 years old, its conclusions are becoming somewhat dated.
So, using the same database and search terms as Oreskes, Dr. Klaus-Martin Schulte examined all papers published from 2004 to February 2007. The results have been submitted to the journal Energy and Environment, of which DailyTech has obtained a pre-publication copy. The figures are surprising.
Of 528 total papers on climate change, only 38 (7%) gave an explicit endorsement of the consensus. If one considers "implicit" endorsement (accepting the consensus without explicit statement), the figure rises to 45%. However, while only 32 papers (6%) reject the consensus outright, the largest category (48%) are neutral papers, refusing to either accept or reject the hypothesis. This is no "consensus." The figures are even more shocking when one remembers the watered-down definition of consensus here. Not only does it not require supporting that man is the "primary" cause of warming, but it doesn’t require any belief or support for "catastrophic" global warming. In fact of all papers published in this period (2004 to February 2007), only a single one makes any reference to climate change leading to catastrophic results.
Somehow the BBC decided not to run this story. Heresy! Oops.
Did you see that Brian Paddick, the former Deputy Assistant Commissioner of the Metropolitan Police, has decided to seek the LiberaL-Democrat nomination to run for the position of Mayor of London? Paddick is quite the liberal already. He first became a public figure when his experimental relaxing of cannabis laws came under scrutiny in South London in 2001. Combined with his sexuality – he was the highest-ranking openly gay officer in the Met – he rapidly became a ‘celebrity’ policeman. So his quest to become Mayor in a city where gayness is next to godliness is notunexpected. I’m sure he has no chance but it shows that liberal attitides prevail at the highest level within UK Policing.
I see that UK MPs are moving to make it MUCH easier and quicker for women to get abortions, without the prior approval of a doctor and, in some cases, with the procedure just being carried out by a nurse. MPs from all parties are to launch a campaign to modernise abortion law. They want to allow women to have early abortions on an "informed consent" basis and to allow trained nurses and midwives to carry out early abortions for the first time. They also want to expand the number of clinics offering early abortions so that women are no longer restricted to using centres officially licensed to carry out terminations. Now I know that there are very strong views on this, both pro and anti – but I have to say that I find the cross-party enthusiasm that MP’s have for making abortions on demand available shocking. Where is the cross-party enthusiasm for protecting the unborn?
Interesting to read that almost 3,000 crimes were committed last year where the suspect was too young to be prosecuted. Figures show there were about 1,300 incidents of criminal damage and arson, and more than 60 sex offences committed by under-10s in England and Wales. Talka bout feral youth.However if a child is nine or under, he or she can not be charged with an offence in England and Wales, although the crime will be recorded by the police. Some people want to see the age of criminal responsibility lowered, other bleeding heart liberal want to see it increased. But the way I see it, these feral kids will have parent(s) and it is they who must be also made to feel the full legal consequences for their lawless offspring. The depravity of a section of British society cannot be emphasised enough and I suspect that this is also the section where Welfare dependency is also the greatest. Abosolving parents from responsibilty for what their kids do assuages the liberal heart but it is sheer folly. I can remember as a yougster how we were all scared senseless that we might ever do something that would make the police call at our parents door. We knew what the consequences would be and the shame this would bring upon our family so we behaved ourselves. Nowadays we live in a shameless society where the Police are frequently viewed with contempt and the law is seen as a bad joke. Little wonder that these young kids think they can do whatever they want, secure that there will be no consequences for them. We ought to ensure that there are!
Pleased to see thatt GOP presidential hopeful Rep. Tom Tancredo say it is “time the taxpayer gravy train left the New Orleans station” and urged an end to the federal aid to the region that was devastated by Hurricane Katrina two years ago.“The amount of money that has been wasted on these so-called ‘recovery’ efforts has been mind-boggling,” said Tancredo, who is running a long-shot presidential campaign. “Enough is enough". The lawmaker criticized in particular the amount that has been wasted through fraud and abuse, estimated at $1 billion. Just think – $1 billion worth of aid wasted and not a cheep out of the liberal class. Time those in the Big Sleazy started taking care of business for themselves, don’t you think?
You do not defeat terrorism by rewarding terrorists, regardless of how many bleeding heart liberals argue otherwise. Want to know where that flawed approach leads to? Read UNIONISM DECAYED 1997-2007 - It's my first book and it explains what happens when you seeek to appease terrorists and call it peace. It's available right now for ATW readers so make sure you get your copy by emailing the editor! This is the book that dissents from the herd mentality that doing wrong can lead to being right. It doesn't and this book spells out WHY.
Copyright & copy; 2010 A Tangled Web (All rights reserved). Comments on articles here are unmoderated, and do not necessarily reflect the views of A Tangled Web or David Vance. Comments that are off-topic, offensive, slanderous, or otherwise unacceptable may be deleted by the Editor. However the fact a particular comment remains on the site IN NO WAY constitutes an endorsement by David Vance of the views expressed therein.